-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.8k
various nested column (and other) fixes #13732
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
clintropolis
merged 13 commits into
apache:master
from
clintropolis:fix-nested-column-schema-handling-and-a-bunch-of-other-stuff
Feb 7, 2023
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
13 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
02de082
various nested column fixes
clintropolis e5cb7d9
better
clintropolis 7a60699
pointless
clintropolis 6ab287f
constant fix
clintropolis 7f88eb1
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into fix-nested-column…
clintropolis 77e1485
modernize calcite tests to not use parsers, tidy up nested field virt…
clintropolis fb429ed
less parser
clintropolis 0bdd5a9
remove unused
clintropolis b073dd7
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into fix-nested-column…
clintropolis a6c02ec
changes:
clintropolis 3f63354
typo and more test
clintropolis f888086
style
clintropolis e0e6745
adjust
clintropolis File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we even need to base64 it? why not just keep it as a
byte[]?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this is going into the expression system, if we don't handle it like this, it ends up as "unknown complex" and is basically useless in that form since we don't have a native byte[] typed expressions, and complex types cannot be cast to anything else (not that would do anything useful here).
With nested columns, leaving it as a byte[] is a problem, since we are using this method to process inputs to determine their type, we have a default case for anything that leaks through that isn't
LONGorDOUBLEorSTRINGthat effectively calls java toString on things that makes these end up not very usefulbyte[].toString.I could change this to be a parse exception, but even if we did that, i still think it would still be useful to feed these into the expressions as a base64 encoded string rather than throwing it away. Maybe in the future it would be nice to have a byte blob type to not have to encode it, but until then, I think this is the most useful thing we can do, and its consistent with the behavior we use to handle byte[] in
Rows.objectToStringsthat normal string columns go through.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Okay